Do eBay monitor activity, or only rely on members reports of fraud? - Wheels, from what Mr Feiler and others have stated publicly, eBay rely largely upon members reporting fraud. (Then he turns around and contradicts himself, or mitigates what he's said.) That's why extreme_redeye, for instance, maintains a running list of suspicious items from accounts that seem to be hijacked, reporting them to Trust & Safety on an alarmingly regular basis. If he and the various members who help him weren't doing that, there would be a great many more instances of undetected fraud.
Frankly, I don't think eBay monitor activity which might be fraudulent. I think there are a couple of automatic protocols in place - some sellers will have experienced them. These protocols automatically limit a seller's ability to list if they add a "designer" item to their listings, or start selling things they've not sold before, or start selling high-value items in some quantity. That doesn't help with a great many fraudsters - who know exactly how to manage this. Apparently these well-aware fraudsters build up feedback rapidly, may start listing from China (with "wow that's a lot cheaper!" prices + postage that might not be quite as cheap) or use a hijacked account to list from Australia, and bypass those rudimentary automatic protocols.
Nothing that eBay had in place "detected" EBS... and that's just one large-scale example. I think it is fair to say that eBay don't physically monitor activity. I don't believe they have staff whose task it is to monitor for suspicious listings. I believe that eBay has simply set up some automatic bots which automatically limit sellers when one of the protocols is triggered (and many of these sellers are legitimate and are deeply annoyed at having their accounts sanctioned, without even knowing WHY).
Do eBay 'often' alert the Police? I was told it was up to me to contact the Police, due to privacy concerns. - Wheels, I don't believe that eBay often alert the police. I cannot prove this. I can only say that every individual I know who's been a victim of fraud on eBay has actually had the greatest difficulty in getting eBay to do ANYTHING, and none of these individuals were told "We've contacted the police about this fraud". It would be remarkable if all the defrauded people I know and know of (and there are more than 100) are exceptions to the rule of eBay "often" alerting the police. I know even of two instances where eBay were reluctant to release any data to the police, not in refusing to do so but in spinning out the process so that the police sent three "reminders" for the information over a 4-6 month period.
Are buyers always protected from fraud for up to $20,000? I thought item listings from new sellers with less than 50 feedback only offered up to $400 protection. As long as your purchase is "eligible", it's covered up to $20,000. As Riff mentioned, you might be looking at the clause related to purchases made prior to June 2008. But check the eligibility criteria - it doesn't cover pre-sale items that won't be supplied for more than 20 days; it doesn't cover vehicles and other vehicular items; it doesn't cover non-physical items; and so on. Excepting that, yes - buyers are covered for up to $20,000. Oh, lest I forget... of course this only applies if you open a dispute within 45 days. You may not open a dispute if a) you don't often buy online and are unaware of a 45-day deadline; b) your seller explains by email several times and very convincingly why there is a delay and to please be patient; c) you don't notice the item has a problem until 45 days have passed; and so on. PayPal won't let you open a dispute AT ALL if it's so much as 1 second past the 45-day period. I am perfectly serious - one second will make the difference.
But IF your transaction is eligible and IF you open a dispute within the required timeframe, you can be reimbursed. (PayPal say it's at their discretion, so they do have a get-out clause, but so far they appear to be refunding, and when they don't it's usually down to their saying the claim is rejected under the wrong PayPal policy.) Note, though, that it doesn't cover return postage of an item not as described, and this is a problem when the postage is as costly or more costly than the item itself - as I established with the "Italian seller" problem I have.
You mentioned sellers being unable to sell on eBay unless they have a PayPal account. NOT TRUE. A seller is perfectly able to list an item without actually having a PayPal account. They are able to tell the buyer they have problems at the moment with their PayPal account so please pay some other way, or some other excuse or encouragement towards another payment method, but of course if the buyer insists on using PayPal, the seller is up the doodad and can be reported. Perhaps what Riff means is that the seller is obliged to OFFER PayPal on the listing, but eBay don't at present cross-reference seller information with PayPal account holders.
I agree with Cupie on the issue of ID verification, and can't for the life of me see why eBay or PayPal considers this a problem. I've talked elsewhere about Paypal piggy-backing onto the verification gained by banks, and the problems this raises. Oils ain't oils - and banks ain't banks. Australian banks are far more secure than US banks, for instance... and let's not talk about other online bank accounts on offer by far less scrupulous banks. A bank's security and protocols are defined under a regulating body and fall under the guidelines established by that regulating body. If the regulating body is dubious, slack, insufficient, not enforced, doesn't exist or is able to be ignored, then banks under that regulating body offer an appalling lack of security.
This is also why some individuals are highly dubious about using PayPal. I know we're all aware by now that PayPal doesn't come under the regulating body that governs Australian banks... Anyway, that's another issue. On the subject of paying someone of whom one has no personal knowledge, no way of gaining redress if the deal goes sour, etc., I agree PayPal is the only method that offers compensation on eBay. eBay have set it up in that way. (If only eBay would allow merchants who have merchant accounts to offer card payments! I'd be happy to pay that way.)
Getting back to the article... "She believes the online auction site is not prepared to protect buyers from bogus sellers hiding behind fake identities." Yes, I agree. eBay is not prepared to do that, and relies on eBay members reporting listings to a large extent.
Daniel Feiler said "It was up to parents to ensure children were properly monitored when using online sites" - oh, this is simply silly. Sorry. I can't put it any way. What nonsense! Mr Feiler, that's silly, silly, silly. Would you use this line if a 14-year-old held you up at gunpoint and shot you, robbed you, kicked you and ran off? If you discovered the 14-year-old had purchased the gun from a gunseller using fake ID that wouldn't have fooled a child? Wouldn't you blame the gunseller for having sold the gun? Or would you magnanimously forgive the gunseller for not checking the ID, not checking the permit, not checking the age of the buyer, and go straight into Blame The Parents mode? Primarily you'd be angry at the 14-year-old, surely... but I cannot imagine you'd consider the gunseller behaved in any properly. It's illegal to provide cigarettes to those under-age. It's illegal to sell drinks to those under-age. In what way do you consider eBay has the right to remove responsibility for checking that its members are under-age? Did you know, Mr Feiler, that "I didn't know he/she was under 18" is not accepted as an excuse against criminal charges when selling alcohol to minors? Did you know about the fines those sellers receive, and the possibility of gaol-time?
As you can see, I very strongly reject Daniel Feiler's statement above as being in any way adequate.
But then we come to this...
"But Ms Eason said she was following eBay's suggested payment steps after the girl first refused payment by Paypal and then demanded payment by direct deposit.
"I did everything eBay suggested I do to protect myself but eBay have completely abrogated themselves of any responsibility on this," Ms Eason said." Ms Eason didn't do "everything eBay suggested" for protection, or she WOULD have used PayPal. Let's be realistic. eBay pound home
PayPal PayPal PayPal PayPal over and over again. If Ms Eason had done everything eBay suggested, she'd have paid by PayPal regardless of the girl's refusing PayPal payment.
Now, this doesn't mean I don't believe eBay has a responsibility to assure its members when they purchase through eBay of protection irrespective of payment method. I DO believe this. I don't believe payment method ought to be the criterion on which protection is extended or withheld. However, my belief is just that - my belief. In terms of eBay's policies, eBay doesn't operate according to my beliefs. It does only offer protection for payment via PayPal. I may disagree with this, but all the same, my alarm bells would go off if a seller (for a transaction that involved a significant amount of money) refused a PayPal payment. I can understand it if a seller were in Germany or Italy and not offering Paypal at all. I can understand it if a seller were local and offering the item for pickup. (I regard PayPal as iniquitous in that situation.) But in the circumstances, yes, my alarm bells would go off. At the very least, I'd be calling the seller to have a talk before deciding anything. I might still go ahead and pay by bank deposit. But if I did this without checking the seller, I would feel myself to be incredibly foolish.
I do refuse to be fooled into thinking PayPal is the be-all and end-all of security. It's not. But there are certainly instances when the refusal to accept PayPal indicates a possible problem. The buyer should be wary in those circumstances. There's no need to think all people refusing to accept PayPal are dodgy, but there IS a need, I think, to be cautious and to assure oneself of the genuineness of the transaction. Isn't that what we do with purchasing in other venues as well? I would be a fool to buy a "rare genuine object of antiquity, oh yes fully genuine, direct guaranteed from ancient pyramid, I guarantee it, missy" from an oily-smiled stranger in an Egyptian market, wouldn't it? I would be an IDIOT to hand over thousands of dollars for this "rare genuine object of antiquity". I would feel more secure to be handing over thousands of dollars if the object were offered for auction by a reputable antiques auction house such as Christies. In fact, if the object were fake, and if Christies hadn't established the seller's bonafides, Christies would be responsible. In other words, the venue holds responsibility for the genuineness of the items, and in the event of the seller not being able to be contacted when a problem (such as failure to supply) arises, there is precedent for the venue to be held responsible.
For eBay's OWN safety, why don't they verify their members? I come back to this point again and again... but so far eBay are escaping the responsibility by claiming it ISN'T their responsibility.
I don't think the buyer has any responsibility to investigate the seller's age on eBay. The buyer should be able to trust that eBay has done that already.
I don't think the buyer has an absolute obligation to investigate the seller's verity on eBay either, because I believe that too is eBay's responsibility - but I do consider that it's WISE for the buyer to do that. I think that not relying on eBay's standards of verification is essential because I don't believe eBay is doing anywhere near ENOUGH to verify sellers.
I feel greatly sorry for Ms Eason and all of those who were caught in this fraud. I don't think they did everything possible to protect themselves. But I think that if they took this to court, it will be shown that they had reason to believe eBay would protect them. I think that the court would direct eBay to recompense them, and would reiterate the points made in the
Evagora vs eBay case. ("Evagora claimed for his loss against eBay, arguing that he did not read eBay’s user agreement, and that eBay represented that the auction site was safe, which overrode the terms of the user agreement. eBay was held liable by the Tribunal for the loss suffered by Evagora.")
